• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

We must cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
52,009
Reaction score
33,943
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
according to Mitch McConnell:


After instituting a $1.5 trillion tax cut and signing off on a $675 billion budget for the Department of Defense, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday that the only way to lower the record-high federal deficit would be to cut entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.


"It’s disappointing, but it’s not a Republican problem," McConnell said of the deficit, which grew 17 percent to $779 billion in fiscal year 2018. McConnell explained to Bloomberg that "it’s a bipartisan problem: Unwillingness to address the real drivers of the debt by doing anything to adjust those programs to the demographics of America in the future." The deficit has increased 77 percent since McConnell became majority leader in 2015.


Still, McConnell insisted that the change had nothing to do with a lack of revenue or increased spending and instead was due to entitlement and welfare programs. The debt, he said, was very “disturbing” and driven by “the three big entitlement programs that are very popular, Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid.… There’s been a bipartisan reluctance to tackle entitlement changes because of the popularity of those programs. Hopefully, at some point here, we’ll get serious about this.”


I have to agree that the debt is "disturbing."
And, no doubt, the increased cost of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security is a part of it.
There is that baby boomer generation that is retiring, after all, and the soaring cost of health care in general.


But, the tax cuts and overspending has nothing to do with it?


C'mon, Mitch, even you could do better than that.


link
 
X-Y=-Z

It is all Y's fault we have a negative Z!

Basic math is apparently not McConnell's strong suit.
 
But, the tax cuts and overspending has nothing to do with it?
They really don't though....

Do they fix the problem? No.... but they didn't make it worse than it would have been, the deficits aren't any different than the past.

I don't think we can tax ourselves out of the situation... we must cut spending first. Why? Because that is the hardest thing to do... we can always raise taxes, I personally like the strategy of using tariffs instead to those that will not engage in free trade... to make the hard cuts is going to be difficult and that needs to be the priority.

but no-one wants to take the political hit for it...
 
according to Mitch McConnell:







I have to agree that the debt is "disturbing."
And, no doubt, the increased cost of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security is a part of it.
There is that baby boomer generation that is retiring, after all, and the soaring cost of health care in general.


But, the tax cuts and overspending has nothing to do with it?


C'mon, Mitch, even you could do better than that.


link

Starving the beast has been the republican game plan for decades. This is the end result.
 
A major GOP consideration of the 2017 tax boon to the wealthy was to use that tax handout as a raison d'être to attack social safety-net programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIPs, etc.

That wetdream will be impossible if the Democrats take the House in 3 weeks. But it does show Americans the GOP mindset ..... **** everyone but the wealthy.

There was a reason the GOP Congress crafted its 2017 tax legislation in absolute secrecy.
 
The changes which need to be made are simply to raise federal taxes to cover federal spending - that concept seems to work at the state/local government level. If the republicants decide to 'tackle entitlements' (cut SS/Medicare) then they will be quickly replaced by demorats who could simply raise FICA (payroll) taxes a bit as was done in 1985.

Even if one considers the flat FICA (payroll) tax to be 'regressive' one must remember that half of that tax is paid by (the rich?) 'job creators' who just got a decent federal income tax break. Using "government math" one could surely get away with saying that a FICA rate increase from 7.65% to 9% is less than a 2% (barely over a 1%?) tax increase - even though it is really nearly an 18% tax increase.
 
They really don't though....

Do they fix the problem? No.... but they didn't make it worse than it would have been, the deficits aren't any different than the past.

I don't think we can tax ourselves out of the situation... we must cut spending first. Why? Because that is the hardest thing to do... we can always raise taxes, I personally like the strategy of using tariffs instead to those that will not engage in free trade... to make the hard cuts is going to be difficult and that needs to be the priority.

but no-one wants to take the political hit for it...

So higher deficits are not different than lower deficits? That is an interesting position to take...
 
A major GOP consideration of the 2017 tax boon to the wealthy was to use that tax handout as a raison d'être to attack social safety-net programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIPs, etc.

That wetdream will be impossible if the Democrats take the House in 3 weeks. But it does show Americans the GOP mindset ..... **** everyone but the wealthy.

There was a reason the GOP Congress crafted its 2017 tax legislation in absolute secrecy.

Yep. Exactly.
 
They really don't though....

Do they fix the problem? No.... but they didn't make it worse than it would have been, the deficits aren't any different than the past.

I don't think we can tax ourselves out of the situation... we must cut spending first. Why? Because that is the hardest thing to do... we can always raise taxes, I personally like the strategy of using tariffs instead to those that will not engage in free trade... to make the hard cuts is going to be difficult and that needs to be the priority.

but no-one wants to take the political hit for it...

Wtf are you talking about? There have been countless instances, including just recently when the deficit was MUCH less than it is now. Total nonsense.
 
They really don't though....

Do they fix the problem? No.... but they didn't make it worse than it would have been, the deficits aren't any different than the past.

I don't think we can tax ourselves out of the situation... we must cut spending first. Why? Because that is the hardest thing to do... we can always raise taxes, I personally like the strategy of using tariffs instead to those that will not engage in free trade... to make the hard cuts is going to be difficult and that needs to be the priority.

but no-one wants to take the political hit for it...

If more people would get jobs that have employer paid insurance we wouldn't even need Medicaid. Medicaid is medical welfare.

Medicare and Social Security are funded by payroll taxes. So more jobs, and more workers means more revenue. They are underfunded because politicians are afraid to raise the payroll taxes to pay for them because someone might not vote for them and well, it's all about that isn't it? I remember the last time they raised them. My God. People acted as if the world was going to end.

Americans want it but don't want to pay for it. That is why the left invented "the other guy".
 
The changes which need to be made are simply to raise federal taxes to cover federal spending - that concept seems to work at the state/local government level. If the republicants decide to 'tackle entitlements' (cut SS/Medicare) then they will be quickly replaced by demorats who could simply raise FICA (payroll) taxes a bit as was done in 1985.

Even if one considers the flat FICA (payroll) tax to be 'regressive' one must remember that half of that tax is paid by (the rich?) 'job creators' who just got a decent federal income tax break. Using "government math" one could surely get away with saying that a FICA rate increase from 7.65% to 9% is less than a 2% (barely over a 1%?) tax increase - even though it is really nearly an 18% tax increase.

Good points. Also, if we’re going to continue to treat social security like we do non-entitlement social programs (social security, Medicare, veterans benefits are all entitlements because they are paid into or earned - snap, Medicaid, section 8 housing and all the others are non-entitlement social programs) then we need the implement means testing or do as you say (which I agree with) as well as allow people to opt-out and manage their own retirement funds.
 
The best approach is cuts across the board. Even the sacred cow the military. When I was in the military we all knew that if a civilian got a military contract they just won the lottery.
 
Good points. Also, if we’re going to continue to treat social security like we do non-entitlement social programs (social security, Medicare, veterans benefits are all entitlements because they are paid into or earned - snap, Medicaid, section 8 housing and all the others are non-entitlement social programs) then we need the implement means testing or do as you say (which I agree with) as well as allow people to opt-out and manage their own retirement funds.

The SS opt out idea is DOA since only (fairly young) 'contributors' would opt out - who is going to pay for the "boomers" that would not opt out? Not only that, but those that opted out and did not save (enough) would qualify for other "safety net" assistance.
 
This socialist rubbish was a real bad idea from the get-go. Cradle to grave entitlements = the road to ruin. I'm entitled to YOUR wallet but now its an empty wallet. WTF?
 
Starving the beast has been the republican game plan for decades. This is the end result.

Nobody has actually attempted to starve the beast. Starving the beast means making actual cuts. Actual cuts are so rarely made they are news worthy.
 
Do they fix the problem? No.... but they didn't make it worse than it would have been, the deficits aren't any different than the past.
Uh, hello? The deficit has soared in the past year, because of the tax cuts.


I don't think we can tax ourselves out of the situation... we must cut spending first. Why? Because that is the hardest thing to do...
Riiiiiiiiight

Have you not paid attention to US politics for the past 30 years? Passing a tax raise is nearly impossible in the US. Republicans would commit mass suicide rather than sign a 5% across-the-board tax hike.


I personally like the strategy of using tariffs instead to those that will not engage in free trade... to make the hard cuts is going to be difficult and that needs to be the priority.
Yeah, it's not 1825. The US does not receive significant tax revenue from tariffs. Any tariffs substantial enough to make a dent in income will result in a dramatic reduction in imports (and exports, as other nations retaliate) which will cut the tariff and reduce growth elsewhere.
 
The best approach is cuts across the board. Even the sacred cow the military. When I was in the military we all knew that if a civilian got a military contract they just won the lottery.

Don't go small cuts either, go for deep 50% across the board everywhere cuts including federal employment. Right now the only military we should have is our nuclear forces and a very small core force. If its not absolutely essential it goes.
 
The SS opt out idea is DOA since only (fairly young) 'contributors' would opt out - who is going to pay for the "boomers" that would not opt out? Not only that, but those that opted out and did not save (enough) would qualify for other "safety net" assistance.

The safety net needs to go. It needs to become a safety line and it needs to be a pain in the ass to get and keep. Enough to eat have a place to sleep that's it and it still has to be earned.
 
a common-sense solution was already identified: Simpson-Bowles

the republicans and the democrats both ignored it
 
The safety net needs to go. It needs to become a safety line and it needs to be a pain in the ass to get and keep. Enough to eat have a place to sleep that's it and it still has to be earned.

Nobody is running for office based on that idea - but feel free to vote for them.
 
We can discuss this again when everyone on this thread reaches 65.
 
The safety net needs to go. It needs to become a safety line and it needs to be a pain in the ass to get and keep. Enough to eat have a place to sleep that's it and it still has to be earned.

Nah. The safety net should likely be strengthened. There's simply no need for some idiotic Darwinian law of the jungle fantasy bull**** on those less fortunate or old.
 
The safety net needs to go. It needs to become a safety line and it needs to be a pain in the ass to get and keep. Enough to eat have a place to sleep that's it and it still has to be earned.
What "safety net?" What is it you imagine that people get? What percentage of federal spending do you think goes to safety nets?

Do you not know that it's already a huge pain in the ass to apply? Go ahead, talk to some people who have applied for TANF, or Social Security Disability, or AFDC.

Do you not realize that the more time people have to spend jumping through hoops for temporary assistance, the less time and resources they have to look for a job?

Do you not know that safety nets in the US are mostly temporary? That most working-age people get assistance for 2-3 years max?

Do you think senior citizens, who worked all their lives, are also lazy bastards who need to get back to work?

Do you really think that a tax cut, most of which benefits the wealthy, has nothing whatsoever to do with the deficit?
 
Back
Top Bottom